This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Classic Theme
Thottbot Theme
Mass Surveillance
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
Laihendi
And once you give up your freedom, you're being oppressed. Oppressors don't give you protection, they give you oppression, which is what you should be protected against.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
And once you give up your freedom, you're being oppressed. Oppressors don't give you protection, they give you oppression, which is what you should be protected against.
Oh, I think it's perfectly fine to give up your freedom. Some people aren't capable of protecting themselves or their interests. But that freedom must be given, not taken.
Post by
Laihendi
And once you give up your freedom, you're being oppressed. Oppressors don't give you protection, they give you oppression, which is what you should be protected against.
Oh, I think it's perfectly fine to give up your freedom. Some people aren't capable of protecting themselves or their interests. But that freedom must be given, not taken.
For those people, should the government be trying to help protect people and their interests without taking away their freedom?
Post by
375923
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Laihendi
What about on private property?
Post by
260787
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Adamsm
Didn't the Simpsons recently do this.... and it drove the entire town insane? And then it was found out at the end it was nothing but a British TV Show making fun of 'Americans'(I use the term loosely in regards to the Springfield population).
Post by
260787
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
375923
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
And once you give up your freedom, you're being oppressed. Oppressors don't give you protection, they give you oppression, which is what you should be protected against.
Oh, I think it's perfectly fine to give up your freedom. Some people aren't capable of protecting themselves or their interests. But that freedom must be given, not taken.
For those people, should the government be trying to help protect people and their interests without taking away their freedom?
It should do that for everyone. That's its whole point.
And I already said. It shouldn't take freedom. Freedom can be given, not taken.
Post by
Monday
I am fully about privacy, and imo I don't think the government should have a right to monitor you etc UNLESS they are relatively sure you are breaking the law, part of organized crime etc, etc.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
What about on private property?
Indoors I dont think it is needed to an extent,
and when you say private propertie do you mean houses or the likes of shopping malls?
In homes it is not needed but people can allow it in their propertie if they wish,
In the likes of privately owned public places then yes to an extent.
Private property is private property. Whether the owner lets people come in or not is irrelevant.
Post by
260787
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Monday
I am fully about privacy, and imo I don't think the government should have a right to monitor you etc UNLESS they are relatively sure you are breaking the law, part of organized crime etc, etc.
Proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Then again, in today's society, you're guilty until proven innocent.
Aye, relatively sure in my book means that they have video evidence/DNA blah blah (I'm not exactly a pro in CSI, so I'll just say that if they have a lot of evidence).
Post by
375923
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
260787
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
I am fully about privacy, and imo I don't think the government should have a right to monitor you etc UNLESS they are relatively sure you are breaking the law, part of organized crime etc, etc.
Well of course what I mean by Mass surveillance is not a room full of Policemen watching you on monitors 24/7 it is just the surveillance being there incase a crime is reported in a particular area such as the example I gave.
If it's recorded, people can see it. It's as simple as that. Just because people aren't watching it 24/7 doesn't change anything.
And who decides who gets to see the footage?
Post by
260787
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Laihendi
What about on private property?
Indoors I dont think it is needed to an extent,
and when you say private propertie do you mean houses or the likes of shopping malls?
In homes it is not needed but people can allow it in their propertie if they wish,
In the likes of privately owned public places then yes to an extent.
Laihendi means any property that is privately owned. The government putting up cameras on private property is a pretty clear violation of people's privacy.
Post by
375923
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.